Literature DB >> 31307894

Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a reliable metric to measure clinically significant improvements following shoulder arthroplasty.

Anirudh K Gowd1, Michael D Charles2, Joseph N Liu3, Simon P Lalehzarian4, Brandon C Cabarcas5, Brandon J Manderle4, Gregory P Nicholson1, Anthony A Romeo6, Nikhil N Verma7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) offers a simple method of evaluating patients' sense of functional improvement after shoulder arthroplasty.
METHODS: Patients receiving total shoulder arthroplasties were retrospectively queried between 2014 and 2017. Patients completed questionnaires involving SANE, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Constant scores at the 1-year interval. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) were calculated using the anchor-based methodology.
RESULTS: A total of 207 patients with an average age of 66.7 ± 10.3 years and a body mass index of 31.5 ± 7.3 were available for analysis. The SANE score was the only score to have acceptable area under curve (AUC) (70.5%) for achieving MCID with a cutoff of 28.8. In terms of SCB, ASES (88%) and SANE (70.5%) had acceptable AUC with cutoffs of 20.7 and 50.2, respectively. All 3 scores had excellent AUC (>80%) for PASS with cutoffs of 81.9, 75.5, and 24.5 for ASES, SANE, and Constant scores, respectively. Normalized SANE scores were weakly correlated with ASES and Subjective Constant after normalizing for scale (R2 < 0.4). Achieving MCID by SANE was correlated with achieving MCID by Constant (P < .001). Achieving SCB and PASS by SANE was correlated with achieving SCB and PASS by ASES and Constant (ASES: P = .007, P < .001; Constant: P < .001, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The present study establishes clinically significant outcomes for SANE. Achievement of clinically significant outcomes in SANE was correlated with achieving meaningful outcomes with legacy measures of ASES and Constant scores. SANE may be used as a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome after total shoulder arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Total shoulder arthroplasty; clinical outcomes; minimal clinically important difference; patient acceptable symptomatic state; single assessment numeric evaluation; substantial clinical benefit

Year:  2019        PMID: 31307894     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  16 in total

1.  Substantial Inconsistency and Variability Exists Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences for Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  David A Kolin; Michael A Moverman; Nicholas R Pagani; Richard N Puzzitiello; Jeremy Dubin; Mariano E Menendez; Andrew Jawa; Jacob M Kirsch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.755

2.  A randomised trial comparing two rehabilitation approaches following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter K Edwards; Jay R Ebert; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Allan Wang
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

3.  Surgeon and Patient Upper Extremity Dominance Does Not Influence Clinical Outcomes After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel P Berthold; Lukas N Muench; Cameron Kia; Connor G Ziegler; Samuel J Laurencin; Daniel Witmer; Dale N Reed; Mark P Cote; Robert A Arciero; Augustus D Mazzocca
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-07-08

4.  Short-Term Clinical and Return-to-Work Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis With a Single Suture Anchor.

Authors:  Brandon C Cabarcas; Alexander Beletsky; Joseph Liu; Anirudh K Gowd; Brandon J Manderle; Matthew Cohn; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-05-29

5.  Functional outcomes of unstable ankle fractures with and without syndesmotic fixation in the adolescent population.

Authors:  Conner J Paez; Benjamin M Lurie; Vidyadhar V Upasani; Andrew T Pennock
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 1.548

6.  Arthroscopic management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young patient does not negatively impact the outcome of subsequent anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Corey J Schiffman; Anastasia J Whitson; Sagar S Chawla; Frederick A Matsen; Jason E Hsu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Assessing the Patient-Perceived Monetary Value of Patient-Reported Outcome Improvement for Patients With Chronic Knee Conditions.

Authors:  Sarah B Floyd; Alicia Oostdyk; Melanie Cozad; John M Brooks; Paul Siffri; Brian Burnikel
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2021-04-19

8.  Measuring Patient Value after Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Rodolphe Eurin; Axelle Alibert; Mehdi Bensouda; Hugo Bothorel
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 9.  How to Assess Shoulder Functionality: A Systematic Review of Existing Validated Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Rocio Aldon-Villegas; Carmen Ridao-Fernández; Dolores Torres-Enamorado; Gema Chamorro-Moriana
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-08

10.  Suture cerclage for stabilizing the humeral shaft during shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Blake A Eyberg; J Brock Walker; Samuel M Harmsen; Reuben Gobezie; Patrick J Denard; Evan S Lederman
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-05-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.